From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org  Wed May 27 02:27:50 2015
Return-Path: <owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org>
X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom8
Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom8@www.open-std.org
Received: by www.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521)
	id 06C0C35884B; Wed, 27 May 2015 02:27:49 +0200 (CEST)
Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org
Received: from nag-j.co.jp (nag-j.co.jp [111.68.142.10])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E662C35870F
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Wed, 27 May 2015 02:27:43 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Maru6 (218-42-159-105.cust.bit-drive.ne.jp [218.42.159.105])
	(authenticated bits=0)
	by nag-j.co.jp (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t4R0RcR0066806
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Wed, 27 May 2015 09:27:40 +0900 (JST)
	(envelope-from malcolm@nag-j.co.jp)
Message-ID: <3D612AC07AA44118A88A76FAD9B9FAB6@Maru6>
From: "Malcolm Cohen" <malcolm@nag-j.co.jp>
To: "sc22wg5" <sc22wg5@open-std.org>
References: <20150526222707.E035535859B@www.open-std.org> <20150526224650.5BCED3586DF@www.open-std.org>
In-Reply-To: <20150526224650.5BCED3586DF@www.open-std.org>
Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.5505) (j3.2006) Assignment to ero-sized strings and arrays
Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 09:27:37 +0900
Organization: =?utf-8?B?5pel5pysTkFH?=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="utf-8";
	reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Importance: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 15.4.3555.308
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V15.4.3555.308
Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org
Precedence: bulk

>This seems to need an interp.

I disagree.  There is no doubt as to the intention.  No-one is getting this 
wrong.  Walt had this discussion with Robert Corbett earlier, and it can be read 
(admittedly with difficulty) as we obviously intended.

It's certainly a candidate for editorial improvement sometime.  Though since 
there are newer features with confusing wording, or even straight-out technical 
defects, I would not rate this as high priority.  It's much more important to 
get right the things that vendors and users are going to be reading and trying 
to understand.

Cheers,
-- 
................................Malcolm Cohen, Nihon NAG, Tokyo. 

